Opinion: 10 LY range for colonization is ridiculously low.

I just did a check for uninhabited systems within 10LY of our home system, the only system where our faction has a presence.

There is 1.

It has 3 stars and zero planets, a K and two Ms. Completely worthless for expanding into.
 
I think Fdev grabbed a number out of thin air without really looking into it ? It would be like expecting the list of mats required to be at least double what it is for repairing attacked stations ??
 
I mentioned in the other thread that the 10 ly limit is pretty well incompatible with the Gliese Density of the bubble, sure it would work... further toward Colonia. Letting players go ham on colonisation would be a bad idea, though this is very much overkill on restriction. There is a reason why it is recommended to have an FSD with over 10 ly of jump range... you get stuck. Either will work for me:
a) Base range spheres based on bgs explansion/investment states, 16 ly -> 30 ly -> 60 ly, with enough work you can manage a full 60 Ly on a claim.
b) Full FC jump range of 500 ly with some caveats. we don't want this to be overpowered:
Base_claim_cost(let's say 10 million) x Ly_to_claim_system x 2.71828 = for a claim on a system ~500 Ly out expect to pay something like 13 billion credits, without significant player time investment your aren't going to build your starport in time. Further more the range could be clamped depending on the Gliese Density in your part of the galaxy (FDev could get this with the heightmap they used, no idea if the game actively uses the heightmap they made), Gliese density of 0 to 1 to get you full 500, Gliese density of 50% (around the bubble) can get you up to 250 ly of claim, while space around Sag A* would get you 10 ly of claim (and that's ALOT of stars packed into that 10 ly).
 
I've been playing this game 10 years, and honestly I am just tired of Fdev delivering a broken or gimped feature, and they take 2+ years fixing it, if at all, of issues that should have been addressed in the design phase. and some of them simple problems. I just want this work out of the box. So let's avoid the waste of time, and more importantly server resources, as well as it becoming an eyesore, and the "unfun" of it all and
just.... let.... people.... colonize..... where.... they.... want.... on the outset.
Set expectation pips to [REDACTED].
 
There is a beta early next year, hopefully there will be a new commodity "Cheese" introduced to accompany the disappointment of those who consider that the new feature that doesn't permit them to set up a colony at Beagle, or somewhere, is unfair and not thought through...

Nobody (i think) is talking about fair/unfair, we are just expressing what we'd like from this feature.

What specifically is wrong with someone wanting to set up a colony at Beagle? Assuming they can do it in time.
 
What specifically is wrong with someone wanting to set up a colony at Beagle?
Nothing, of course doing it 10 Ly at a time, might just take a week or two to achieve...
Nobody (i think) is talking about fair/unfair
Maybe I read the hints that have been directed against FD for their lack of compassion in suggesting there be actual rules to their game addition in entirely the wrong way... It certainly appeared as though playthings had been used as projectiles from an infant transporter...

ETA: But, never mind, there is going to be a beta of the addition, so FD will adjust as they deem wise after such. Allegedly nothing is cast in stone so far...
 
Last edited:
Maybe I read the hints that have been directed against FD for their lack of compassion in suggesting there be actual rules to their game addition in entirely the wrong way... It certainly appeared as though playthings had been used as projectiles from an infant transporter...

Everyone agrees that there should be rules. Exactly what those should be is a point of contention. I don't think it does the discussion any favours to dismiss anyone questioning the rules we know so far, as them just having a strop. Elite is a literally galaxy-sized sandbox that comes with a plethora of tools to play in it. System colonisation has the potential to satisfy multiple different approaches to the sandbox, so it's hardly unreasonable that so many have expressed concerns about the 10ly and its implications. It's a small distance even by pre-engineering standards.

Thankfully FDev have indicated that the 10ly limit is likely to be a provisional one, dependent on how things turn out when the feature is released. So personally I'm not too worried, I'm sure that there'll be some adjustments made based on player activity and feedback, which will come from a broader source than just this forum. But the fact that some people have poorly expressed their issues doesn't mean that they are wrong for having them.
 
ETA: But, never mind, there is going to be a beta of the addition, so FD will adjust as they deem wise after such. Allegedly nothing is cast in stone so far...

Ahem... we do have 10 years of development history to look back on.

Chances are, FD will release with a 10LY range, maybe bump it up to 20 after a few months of complaints, then do nothing with it for 5+ years, then eventually change it, saying they listened to feedback, and they make it 1000LY.

Or maybe it will have the same chance of being increased as Powerplay has of being made open only. :p
 
sigh Firstly, it IS a game, and obviously they want this feature to launch well, and there is no sense in imposing an artificial limitation when intuitively the system should allow you to do what you think it should. "Colonize space and build empires." Secondly, people are going to try and brute force the system and create "Colony Inchworms" that will slowly crawl out to where they want to go, and THEN the actual intention of the system people are wanting to do can begin. I say, just go to that part and call it a day. Don't belabor the fun.

To your second point. Infrastructure my dude, no man is an island and no system is self sustaining. One of the endpoints that is being sold here, is that the players are building their own empires. Which is cool. You grow your empire from where you start. Allow the player to plant their flag where they want (barring some exemptions that Fdev can flag in the database as "NoGo" zones.) and allow the player and their group to grow from there. and actually colonize the galaxy. Whether it be "their private corner in the back water of space" or a huge squadron/Player Faction building a minibubble near Sag A. To that low life CMDR building casinos and "girls girls girls" signs flashing near their night clubs. The goal here is to unleash player freedom, not curtail it.

If you want a game design reason, it's to prevent "system squatting". So one or few players can't just "squat" on the well known, choice or key systems with the beacons hundreds or even thousands, or tens of thousands of lightyears apart.

I'm honestly envisioning the system much like fleet carriers where accounts only get ONE "global beacon" much like how you can only have one fleet carrier. And if you want that global beacon back, you got to roll up and dismantle everything, decommission everything (which itself sounds like a process you need to commit to.) Since this is colonization, as in a permanent structure change being put into the game, this SHOULD be something taking with serious consideration, whether a player wants to finance this in the first place, and then deeply consider where they want to plant this. So that alone already filters out 95% of the riffraff.

My worry is this feature will be gimped to try and address this hypothetical "system squatter" concern, that I don't think will actually be the issue they think it is. and more over, I think gimping it this way, will create a NEW problem the "Colony Inchworm" which WILL have an effect on the servers, since people will brute force it, creating a plethora of unnecessary system colonies JUST to get out to where they want.

I've been playing this game 10 years, and honestly I am just tired of Fdev delivering a broken or gimped feature, and they take 2+ years fixing it, if at all, of issues that should have been addressed in the design phase. and some of them simple problems. I just want this work out of the box. So let's avoid the waste of time, and more importantly server resources, as well as it becoming an eyesore, and the "unfun" of it all and
just.... let.... people.... colonize..... where.... they.... want.... on the outset.
I have only been playing for eight and while I have no great love for broken features I dislike overpowered ones as well.
I also like consistency in a feature, your point about infrastructure affecting daughter colonies is a good one but it should apply to initial ones as well. Maybe the range can be boosted by how many suitable “supply” systems are within x light years of the initiating system?

I was hoping, especially in response to the base building threats, that it would be a one per account deal. But the stream gave the distinct impression to me that once the Colony beacon changes to a Nav beacon the Commander would be able to start another colony.

But time and the beta will doubtless reveal more.
 
What specifically is wrong with someone wanting to set up a colony at Beagle? Assuming they can do it in time.
Right or wrong is subjective here, of course. There are e.g. explorers who dislike the specter of bubble shenanigans potentially coming to anywhere in the wilderness. Now comes the reply of course that the galaxy is so big that it hardly matters, but if you just look at what those who want this are saying, you can see that it's anything but random. Most want to go where others are already and give evidence that they like it there. This leads to said changes of whatever location becomes popular. Now, this is natural development, you say. I say no it isn't, people do this deliberately if given the chance and nothing forces us to let them. We'll see which side development is leaning.
 
Right or wrong is subjective here, of course. There are e.g. explorers who dislike the specter of bubble shenanigans potentially coming to anywhere in the wilderness. Now comes the reply of course that the galaxy is so big that it hardly matters, but if you just look at what those who want this are saying, you can see that it's anything but random. Most want to go where others are already and give evidence that they like it there. This leads to said changes of whatever location becomes popular. Now, this is natural development, you say. I say no it isn't, people do this deliberately if given the chance and nothing forces us to let them. We'll see which side development is leaning.
And we all know someone, somewhere will get their nose out of joint because someone colonised a system they shouldn't have, because it was a tribute to my grandmothers auntie's bridge club buddy's daughters dead budgie and HOW VERY DARE YOU!
 
What specifically is wrong with someone wanting to set up a colony at Beagle? Assuming they can do it in time.

I can only speak from a personal point of view but places like Beagle Point became what they are because of the sense of remoteness you got once you made the trek out there. Looking back at the galaxy and knowing humanity was so far away, there's really no place like it as far as feeling the solitude of it all and being far from the cradle of humanity. Additionally the trek to Beagle Point was a kind of right of passage for explorers, especially in the early years of the game. If players are allowed to build a new bubble out there then those aspects of the game are gone forever.

I guess a jokingly equivalent would be someone building a McDonalds at the summit of Mt. Everest. Some places should be left alone.

Hopefully Frontier will see sense and protect the most distant galactic regions, keeping them off limits to colonization if they want to preserve the sense of an 'untamed' galactic wilderness that the far reaches of the galaxy still offer those that wander them alone. Knowing there's hundreds of "colonias" out there will detract from that.
 
Last edited:
I've been to Beagle Point. I would still have gone there if it was colonised. It would have been a nice bonus to have places to sell my exploration and exobio data without having to pay the carrier tax. If Jacques' original destination had gone to plan, then it's possible that BP would have ended up with more than a bunch of carriers parked there. There might not be a McDonalds over there, but there are certainly a bunch of burger vans pitched up.

The setting for this game is dominated by megacorporations and is not markedly environmentalist in its sentiments. It would honestly be more strange if the galaxy wasn't opened up to development by enterprising settlers.
 
I can only speak from a personal point of view but places like Beagle Point became what they are because of the sense of remoteness you got once you made the trek out there. Looking back at the galaxy and knowing humanity was so far away, there's really no place like it as far as feeling the solitude of it all and being far from the cradle of humanity. Additionally the trek to Beagle Point was a kind of right of passage for explorers, especially in the early years of the game. If players are allowed to build a new bubble out there then those aspects of the game are gone forever.

I guess a jokingly equivalent would be someone building a McDonalds at the summit of Mt. Everest. Some places should be left alone.

Hopefully Frontier will see sense and protect the most distant galactic regions, keeping them off limits to colonization if they want to preserve the sense of an 'untamed' galactic wilderness that the far reaches of the galaxy still offer those that wander them alone. Knowing there's hundreds of "colonias" out there will detract from that.

Yeah, i get that, but to offer two counterpoints:

1) Beagle Point is still remote even if there is a civilization there, a second foundation.

2) McDonalds would totally build a restaurant on top of Everest if it was possible :p

Oh, and i'll throw in a third.

3) In theory, even with just 10LY, we could have a McDonalds... erm, a station at Beagle Point eventually (or as close as possible), it just will take a few centuries of play time :D
 
The setting for this game is dominated by megacorporations and is not markedly environmentalist in its sentiments. It would honestly be more strange if the galaxy wasn't opened up to development by enterprising settlers.

Megacorporations wouldn't care to build a colony 65,000 light years away when there are literally billions of unclaimed systems in our own part of the galaxy. Lets be honest here, the only reason any one would want to build another Colonia at the galaxies most iconic locations is for some sense of selfish secondary fame. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. Is there anything wrong with that, maybe not, but in doing so they could care less at what impact that has on any other player who likes the sense of having parts of the galaxy left alone.

At the end of the day its frontiers call, but once they open up the galaxy to colonies everywhere, there is no going back. So I think the 10 light year limit is there for many reasons and not least one being they understand there's a balance to be found in protecting parts of the galaxy from an inevitable urban sprawl if its all made too trivial.

PS. I don't expect it to stay at 10 light years. But hopefully it won't go above 100.
 
And we all know someone, somewhere will get their nose out of joint because someone colonised a system they shouldn't have, because it was a tribute to my grandmothers auntie's bridge club buddy's daughters dead budgie and HOW VERY DARE YOU!
What? This makes no sense, even as a mockery. The question isn't about places which anyone has already a claim on, under whatever extant or future rules. It's how we get there in the first place to take away its pristine existence.
 
Opinion: Frontier will want to contain expansion to areas that are well populated with active players.

Colonia might qualify, the Crab Nebula had it's application for a McDonald's franchise turned down. Subway might bite, though...
 
Back
Top Bottom